Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Re: playoff slugging + onbase avg.
Message-ID: <856@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Dec-85 20:40:32 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.856
Posted: Sat Dec  7 20:40:32 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Dec-85 20:05:52 EST
References: <483@philabs.UUCP> <941@water.UUCP> <489@philabs.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Distribution: na
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 54
Summary: 


In article <528@philabs.UUCP> dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) writes:
>> Sorry, if you want to argue from the game by game evidence, you will have to
>> actually present it.  The inference from series to games doesn't wash -- the
>> statistical validity of the sample depends on the size of the sample, not
>> on the size of any underlying statistic.
>
>I will present it. It's interesting that I have to present evidence to
>argue from it, whereas you state below that YOUR point of view is reasonable
>though unproven. Double standard, eh? No wonder I can't take your arguments
>seriously.

No, your point of view IS reasonable though unproven.  I have never presented
evidence which claims to refute it.  You HAVE presented evidence which claims
to refute my point of view, but doesn't.  Until better studies are done,
we won't really know.

>Take a basic logic course! The evidence for the use of the statistic
>isn't statistical?!?! It's based on theoretical arguments?!?!?!?! WHAT
>theoretical arguments? I have yet to see a mathematical model of the
>game of baseball that WORKS, i.e., that predicts winners. Don't expect
>a mathematician to swallow handwaving arguments.

Your condition for a model that "WORKS" presupposes your conclusion.  If
my position is correct, the winner of a seven game playoff is essentially
a 50-50 proposition.  Which of several good teams actually wins a pennant
race is mostly random.  You CAN'T predict winners.

I would say, if anything, the absence of such a model supports my position.
(But not strongly enough that I advance this as a serious argument.)

By the way, I am a mathematician.

>And you even invalidate your own arguments! How can I take this
>seriously? (I don't.) You invalidate your argument by stating "It is based
>on the assumption that situational variations in performance is mostly
>random". This is what I have been disagreeing with all along! If you 
>are going to assume that I am wrong, then of course it is easy to 
>show that I am wrong! What DRIVEL!!!

OK.  This is what we are disagreeing about.  If you want to present
statistical evidence for your point of view, feel free to do so.  But
don't present non-evidence and claim it is evidence.

The only evidence I have presented for my position is that I have claimed
that my assumption accounts for the variation in results.  I will admit
that I have no hard statistics to support this point of view.


I am getting tired of this.  Unless you have something new to say, I will
not make any further postings on the subject.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108